Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaisingArizona
if i'm not mistaken, several of the people involved at tunnel creek -- the snowboarders -- expressed concern at least to each other about what was going to happen and took another route. i'm talking about something that should be obvious. like i said, a lot of these reports involve clear breakdowns of basic protocols.
"Human factors" is shorthand in risk management, or whatever you want to call it, for mistakes that humans tend to make because of the way we make decisions, or see or fail to see things. It's one thing to say that people shouldn't screw up. It's another more subtle thing to recognize that there are certain ways in which people tend to (for example) get channeled in their decision making such that by the time they think they are making a final decision, that decision has already been influenced badly by previous decisions that they weren't even aware they were making at the time. The "heuristic traps" paper by McCammon is technical but worth reading if you haven't: http://www.avalanche.org/moonstone/D...%20reprint.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by spook
I am no avalanche/snow expert but pay attention to this as well because I'm interested in failure analysis. The way that human factors and group dynamics play in has some parallels, for example, in air crew decision making, where there was a problem with crew being unwilling to challenge the captain's authority, and there is something called "crew resource management" which tries to make an explicit framework for group decisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management The parallel of these case studies to groups in BC situations like Tunnel Creek should be pretty clear. Similar things (usually without fatal consequence thankfully, but expensive) can happen in large science/engineering projects which is where my professional interest is.
Edit: posted at the same time as spook's last. IMO the aircrew examples are very instructive on human factors, because you can't blame air crashes on being blinded by powder fever. None of those people wanted to crash airplanes, yet they made bad decisions despite extensive training.
BUMP
Attachment 355656
This year there seems to be some examples per the OP's concern.
Perhaps the Avalanche Danger Scale should be changed to read:
Extreme --> Extreme and Ongoing
High --> Certain
Considerable --> Very Likely
Moderate --> Likely
Low --> Sometimes
I just don't see the relationship between Moderate and 'heightened avalanche conditions'. Perhaps also, the Low description should not have "Generally safe avalanche conditions" in the description and should also be changed to use a question mark '?' instead of a checkmark -- a question mark being more in line with the 'watch' part of the advisory.
Or a backcountry skier could realized the limitation of any hazard rating system, understand that this is serious business, real the full report and discussion daily and practice consistent conservative decision making.
Whenever there is a run of fatalities, the conversation is alway lean towards "What needs to change so this doesn't happen". We look for a magic solution. There is nothing wrong with this line of thinking. That said, my biggest take awesome is I have to be awesome everyday. I can't fuck up. That's the sport.
IMO the CAIC had been using considerable too extensively in recent years and have numbed many to its meaning. Perhaps splitting hairs but they used to have the old moderate with pockets of considerable, which IMO is more what they mostly meant, but the pockets was dropped. So when folks go out and mostly see moderate like conditions under a considerable rating they learn to discount considerable.
Under the current color scheme I’d rate it high at the moment in the northern mtns when they have considerable.
But yeah as foggy says, ultimately its up to us to keep the tips up so to speak regardless of the rating.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
With the potential for large numbers of clueless newcomers in the backcountry, it becomes difficult to express hazards which involve spatial variability in a single rating, because said newcomers can’t make the necessary distinctions. As their goal becomes limiting fatalities rather than just conveying information, reports trend towards propaganda, and therefore lose credibility and are somewhat disregarded by experienced skiers, exacerbating the potential for overconfidence in one’s judgement, which becomes yet another heuristic trap to be wary of. I read avalanche ratings Iike I read multiple weather reports, knowing that what really matters is what I find at a particular place and time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
OK, so let's post the COMPLETE danger rating scale that includes likelihood, size, and distribution descriptors, because these are important when forecasters are selecting their rating.
Attachment 355665
I think the idea that forecasters (CAIC in particular, I'm not really familiar enough with any other forecast center to judge) intentionally "pad" their danger ratings to make it scarier for newcomers or whatever is mostly a myth. Avalanche forecasting, like travel in the backcountry, is fraught with uncertainty and subject to human error. There's also the limitations posed by forecasting for very large geographic areas and creating a forecast that adequately covers many different microclimates.
There are two misconceptions about avalanche danger ratings that I see a lot:
1) that it is a binary description, when it is actually a scale. You could be at the low end of Considerable or the high end of Moderate
2) that it is a linear scale when actually it is an exponential scale. See here: https://cbavalanchecenter.org/what-i...erable-danger/
They did away with "pockets of" because it wasn't really necessary. Considerable states the following:
Travel advice: Careful Snowpack evaluation, cautious route-finding and conservative decision making essential.
Likelihood of Avalanches: natural avalanches possible, human triggered avalanches likely.
Avalanche size and distribution: small avalanches in many areas, large avalanches in specific areas, or very large avalanches in isolated areas.
When you REALLY dig into the specifics of the danger scale, the ratings we see make more sense. "Moderate with pockets of Considerable" is not needed because Considerable covers that condition adequately with "large avalanches in specific areas." One has to recognize that not ALL of the descriptors for a particular danger rating must be present, and if on the edge between two danger ratings, the forecaster is generally going to go with the rating that conveys the travel advice they feel is appropriate for the day.
Are there days that the forecaster gets it wrong, or that conditions in the specifc area I'm traveling don't match the danger rating? Of course! But when you really dig into the danger scale and what the ratings mean, I think they get it right a lot more often than not.
The idea that a single rating is all you need for an area that is hundreds of square miles, and that if they just improved that rating system we'd be safer, is absurd. The rating is useful, sure, but "fixing" the rating system -- whatever that means -- won't make a damn bit of difference at keeping people safer.
All excellent points.
For every avalanche advisory from every center: It is a forecast, not an aftercast, no matter what words are used it is still up to the user to make appropriate decisions and to obtain the required education and experience to make those decisions. Or there is always Golf or Bowling or maybe water color painting.
I'm sure research has been done on how to best reach multiple audiences with an avy forecast. Every aspect of the reports we read are intentional.
That said, I like this:
Attachment 355688
from this:
But I don't expect forecasts to be written for me. They are also written for pros and jongs.
That's a cool way of looking at it ISBD. Thanks for the link.
Someone else shared the vid recently. Don't remember who.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using TGR Forums mobile app
Interesting hearing all these opinions. Its going to take me awhile to digest them all.
This conversation is pretty cool. I know you are nerding out on the deets, butQuote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw
For the noobs, I would like to emphasize this, "what really matters is what I find at a particular place and time." and add in that it is SO IMPORTANT to be intimate with your own location. What is your backyard? Own it! Know exactly what the pack looks like and how it will ski over course of the season.
Por ejemplo, here's my little go-to spot on the solo with the dog on keep-it-safe deeper midwinter days, I still get in some silky steep/deep turns:
Attachment 355725
Maybe it's ghey, but I enjoy farming my own turns (with doggo) on that hill. I don't even have to start the truck, just walk over there from my house.
I rarely look at the rating or rose. I read the discussion and relevant observations and use that in conjunction with my own observations for a given area and season.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
"I wasn't going to let Johnny ski the backcountry with friends but he said the avalanche rating was only 'moderate' so I made sandwiches and let him go."
- Quoted from a mother at a MomSkis support group meeting.
With both older and younger people hitting up the backcountry, it is inevitable that the rating systems will be reworked. Is there a better way to define risk and probability and danger than the system in use? I don't know.
I think the industry should continually refine the alerts and systems. This is still early backcountry access compared to what will be in 10 to 15 years. Think 1000% growth in backcountry use and a much broader age range of participants. Think paid access and other administrative bureaucracies that will regulate access.
The market for equipment, the participant profile, legal issues, and the way people communicate in 10 years will have as much to do with it as anything. Symbols and words will be used that have not been invented yet.
Lastly, a built history of ratings, expeditions and outcomes will determine the level of awareness and amount of time and money spent on improving the warning and ratings systems.
I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with the danger scale. There is no magic bullet to make the backcountry safer. Ski touring in an activity for rational people that can demonstrate consistently conservative decision making.
I'm not sure where you live but here in Colorado we have one of the best avalanche centers anywhere. The forecast and discussion have been highlighting the DPS problem all season. The risks have been communicated, YouTubes have been made, its all over the news, people have been dying and yet yesterday people were doing incredible dumb shit.
Agreed. Not trying to make a case for the whole experts vs. newbs thing, but the fatality yesterday in PC was a 31y/o "local" without a beacon. How anyone can not know about the danger in the BC right now is beyond me. The danger level was conservative on that slope yesterday. There are signs at the gate saying you can die. Ignorant people gonna be ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
The common thread is shitty decision making. Not old not young. Not experienced or inexperienced.
Where you want to call it Avalanche Education or not is open to debate. That said, this is the problem. I am frustrated because I don't understand and I don't think most educators do either. Perhaps some type of sit down/ case study with the close call participants might be helpful. This is why the rage call needs to be tempered. Only these people know where there brain was at and why. I think we need to tap into that to attempt to understand the disconnect.
at a certain point shouldnt you strive every day to be your own forecaster
and use more than a 1 word adjective to describe the dangers the mountains and mother nature in a high risk activity?
Yeah, but that's old guy put in the time pie in the ski shit that only people like you and me do or have done. I don't disagree but I think that is part of the disconnect between those that have been self taught by years of experience, the for profit avalanche education community and the reality of how people's brains work today.Quote:
Originally Posted by skifishbum
I have no concrete answers but it seem like there is something about how the message is delivered that needs to change. We could kick our feet up in our recliners and talk about how all the young bucks are dumb asses but that would be both selfish and also missing the point.
I blame the immense increase in the popularity of rock climbing over the last 10 years.
Joking aside, I think a contributing factor (particularly in continental snowpacks) is that people are really shitty and identifying potential avalanche terrain. My dad has been a lifelong skier, although never a backcountry skier, and sometimes I'll share links to avalanche reports with him if I find them interesting. I can't count how many times he's seen pictures and said "wow, I never would have guessed that it would be possible for something that flat/treed/short to avalanche."
I received a similar reaction from a former coworker of mine in Washington state(who is an avid BC skier and former pro patroller at a resort with a robust avy mitigation program) when I would share avy reports from Colorado or Utah with him. "That slid?! I would have considered that a safe zone!"
There's a perceived sense of safety that comes from skiing terrain that is well within one's abilities and where the risks of a tumble are minimal. Sure, the run you're on is no steeper than a blue square cruiser at most resorts, but in an uncontrolled environment, it's still a slope that is capable of sliding.
To circle back around to my opening quip about climbing, I've noticed that among my friends who are avid climbers and skiers, there is a sense that if something isn't steep enough to fall off/down, then it is "safe."
there is much merit to this and i hadn't thought about it before but i think you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by glademaster
Attachment 357096Quote:
The Fin
Cooke City
1/8/2021
Code
ASu-R2-D2-O
Elevation
10000
Aspect
E
Latitude
45.00460
Longitude
-109.95800
Notes
On January 8, 2021 skiers triggered, were caught and injured in an avalanche on The Fin on Republic Mountain outside of Cooke City. They sustained serious injuries and were evacuated by helicopter.
A group of six were on the way up when they triggered the avalanche. Three of them were caught and partially buried. One of the three was buried face down with their head below surface. Two of the three caught were injured. One that was partially buried had an airbag deployed, and another partially buried was the injured party that was flown out. The person partially buried face down was unconscious for a short time and able to ski out, although injured.
We will post more details when they become available.
Number of slides
1
Number caught
3
Number buried
1
Trigger
Skier
Trigger Modifier
u-An unintentional release
R size
2
D size
2
Bed Surface
O - Old snow
Images
Skier triggered on Fin
Single / Multiple / Red Flag
Single Avalanche
Advisory Year
20-21
+
−
Leaflet | U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey | Policies
Skier triggered on Fin
On January 8, 2021 a group of skiers triggered an avalanche on The Fin outside
More
Anyone else look at this and ask, WTF?
I don't think anything has to change. Overall there isn't that many deaths per season, it's not nearly as dangerous as driving your car every day and we aren't going to stop people from making mistakes. We've all been there and fucked up at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles